WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Monday 14 February 2022
Sunday 13 February 2022
Ram Singh Nehra – the full story now online in one accessible document
Guest post by Philip Grant
Regular readers may remember a short series of local history articles which Martin published last December about “a Wembley Indian in the 1930s”.
Ram Singh Nehra in London, c.1930. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)
By good chance, the “Wembley Matters” blog for Part 1 was found on the internet by one of Nehra’s grandchildren, living in Canada. He provided me with some extra information and images. Some of those were used in the Part 3 article, but I was able to include more, and make some minor corrections, when preparing a single, accessible version of Ram Singh Nehra’s story for Brent Archives.
Ram Singh Nehra, as a newly qualified barrister in 1921. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)
After my “Wembley Matters” articles had been shared with other members of the family, I was put in touch with two more granddaughters, and with Nehra’s daughter by his second marriage. One of the corrections I’ve had to make was how Ram Singh met his first wife, Myfanwy. He was visiting another lawyer’s office, soon after qualifying as a barrister of the Middle Temple, when they noticed that a button had come loose on his suit. The lawyer called in his secretary and asked her to sew the button back on. Ram Singh was impressed with her sewing, and with the secretary! She got to know him better, and later sailed to Mombasa to marry him.
Eileen Myfanwy Brazel in the early 1920s. (Courtesy of Elizabeth Sansom)
My articles quoted from articles which Nehra had written in a magazine he published, called “The Indian”. The full version includes several more interesting snippets, as well as illustrations from the magazine itself.
A cover, and a column, from “The Indian” in 1935. (Images from the internet)
My original article mentioned that Nehra had been an early member of The League of Coloured Peoples, founded in 1931 by the Jamaican-born doctor, Harold Moody. In the accessible version of the story, I’ve been able to include a photograph taken, at a garden party held for the League, at the Nehra’s Chalkhill Road home around 1936. Ram Singh Nehra is the man in the white suit, with Harold Moody, wearing glasses, just behind him.
Members of The League of Coloured Peoples at a garden
party in Wembley, c.1936.
(Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)
Ram Singh Nehra’s story tells us a lot about Britain and its Empire the 1930s, through the eyes of an Indian lawyer. It also shares an insight into the man himself, and his efforts to break down prejudice between races and religions, through his own example.
You can find the accessible pdf on the Brent Archives local history articles Google Drive , by “clicking” on the link. I hope you will read it, and share it with others.
Thank you.
Philip Grant.
Friday 11 February 2022
GLA Consultation on Design Guidance (London Plan)
From the Greater London Authority (GLA)
Consultation Opportunity – Design guidance: Characterisation and growth strategies, Optimising site capacity, a design led approach; Small site design codes; and Housing design standards London Plan Guidance
We are consulting on four new pieces of London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to design and housing quality. This is the second consultation on this guidance, which builds on the Good Quality Homes for All Londoners Guidance that was consulted on between 13 October 2020 and 15 January 2021.
We are consulting again because we have made quite significant changes to the guidance including making it into four separate LPG.
1. Characterisation and growth strategy LPG
This relates to the following policies in the London Plan and is used for plan-making:
|
It sets out a three-stage process to survey and analyse the characteristics of areas and uses this to identify the character of different areas and define tall buildings. This is then used to support growth strategies that take account of areas’ capacity for change and capacity for growth, including areas where tall buildings might be appropriate and the heights in these locations.
2. Optimising site capacity: a design led approach LPG
This relates to the following policies in the London Plan and is used for plan-making and directly informing planning applications:
|
It sets out a five-stage process for implementing the design-led approach to plan-making and the site assessments that inform specific planning applications.
3. Small site design codes LPG
This relates to London Plan Policy H2 Small sites, parts B2 – 4, setting out a process to analyse the opportunities for small site development and prepare and implement design codes. It will be used for plan-making and directly informing planning applications. It covers relevant aspects of the National Model Design Code published in 2021 by national government.
4. Housing design standards LPG
This relates to London Plan Policy D6 Housing quality and standards and provides a checklist of London Plan policy requirements for new build, change of use and housing conversions in one place, with appropriate cross references back to the relevant policy in the London Plan and guidance about the type of development different standards apply to.
The new guidance will be of interest to architects, designers, planners, developers, boroughs, neighbourhood planning groups, community groups and others.
The consultation closes on 27 March 2022.
Online Events
We’re running the following events (all online):
Friday 4 March – 10am – 11:30am
This event is a general briefing for the general public to find out more about the new London Plan Guidance documents that relate to design and characterisation. It is open to all and is suitable for planning agents, architects and developers to ask questions and find out more about the guidance.
Register on this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/261016205497
Friday 11 March – 10.00am – 11.30am
This session introduces the four new London Plan Guidance documents that provide guidance on design and characterisation. It is aimed at the borough officers in London, interested in design and characterisation.
Register on this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/261071370497
We are also attending three Urban Design London events on the 8th, 9th and 16th March where we will present and set out the guidance documents that are out for consultation. To sign up to these events, please sign up on the UDL website. https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/events/2021-2022/london/
Useful Links
View details on the consultation and submit your response:
https://consult.london.gov.uk/designandcharacterisationguidance
Sign up to attend our online events:
http://londonplanguidance.eventbrite.com
The London Plan 2021 can be viewed on our website:
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021
Any queries can be emailed to QualityHomesLPG@london.gov.uk. You can post responses to: The Planning Team, Greater London Authority, City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, LONDON, E16 1ZE.
Kind regards
The London Plan and Growth Strategies Team
Thursday 10 February 2022
Brent Council: Heritage and Hypocrisy
Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-
The newly renovated listed Georgian house in Kensal Green.
A press release issued by Brent Council on 9 February opens with the words: ‘A threatened historic building is now a beautiful family home thanks to Brent’s heritage experts.’
It gives the news of how Brent’s Heritage team worked with the new owner of this Georgian villa, on the Harrow Road in Kensal Green, and Historic England, to retain the historic characteristics of a building that had fallen into disrepair, and was “at risk”. The press release ends with a link, inviting us to “Read more about Brent’s heritage assets”.
The page on the Council’s website tells us:
‘Brent's heritage assets include a wide range of architectural styles from Victorian Italianate, Gothic Revival, suburban 'Arts and Crafts', ‘Tudorbethan’, ‘Old World’, Modern and Brutalist.’
‘Heritage assets make a substantial contribution to Brent's local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’
And, after describing the various types of heritage assets, including statutory listed buildings, locally listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, it concludes by stating:
‘Brent’s heritage is valued as evidence of the past culture, providing a sense of belonging.’
Brent’s finest example of the Victorian Italianate style of architecture, and a locally listed heritage asset, is the villa at 1 Morland Gardens, originally known as “Altamira”. It was built in 1876, as part of the original Stonebridge Park development, by the architect Henry Kendall Jr. It is ‘a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’ And yet, its owner, Brent Council, plans to demolish it.
“Altamira” at the entrance to Stonebridge Park in a 1906 postcard. (Source: Brent Archives)
“Altamira”, now home to the Brent Start adult college, in 2020.
At the first pre-application planning meeting in March 2019, Brent’s project team were told that the Council’s Heritage Officer believed that this heritage building should be retained. But a Planning Officer had already (wrongly) told them that ‘not retaining the villa was acceptable.’
When Brent submitted its planning application in 2020, seeking to demolish the Victorian villa to make way for a new college facility with an eight-storey block of flats on top of it, the Heritage Officer’s initial comments said that the villa ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’
The Heritage Officer’s final report, dismissed the conclusions put forward in a “Heritage Statement” submitted by planning agents on behalf of Brent Council, as the prospective developer. He referred to evidence provided by ‘Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York’, saying:
‘He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’.’
Brent’s heritage planning policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for…heritage assets should…retain buildings, …where their loss would cause harm.’ It’s Heritage Officer’s final report clearly stated that: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’
Despite the evidence of “Brent’s heritage expert”, and the efforts of myself and other residents to get Brent’s Planning Committee to uphold the Council’s own heritage planning promises, five of the eight members were persuaded to accept the recommendation of Brent’s Planning Officers, and approve the Council’s application.
I welcome the news that the privately-owned heritage Georgian villa in Kensal Green has been restored to its former glory – but when it comes to heritage, it does seem that there is one rule for the Council, and another for everyone else!
-----------------------------------------------------
I’m dedicating this article to the memory of Martin Redston. Martin was one of many supporters of Willesden Local History Society’s campaign to “Save the Altamira”. He’d also been a leading figure in the 2012/13 community campaign to stop the demolition by Brent Council of another locally listed heritage asset, the original 1894 Victorian section of Willesden Green Library.
Brent’s then Regeneration Director had said it would be impossible to retain that building if the Council was to have a new library centre, “for free”, as part of its proposed deal with a developer partner. Martin provided them with this sketch, to show how it could be done.
Public pressure forced the Council to change its mind, and Brent now boasts of its new Willesden Green Library. There is even a photograph of it on the front of its Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy booklet, with a caption saying that the new building: ‘returns to use the locally listed Victorian Library blending perfectly the old and the new.’
There is still time for Brent to change its mind, and do the same at 1 Morland Gardens, rather than demolishing a beautiful, and still useful, heritage asset.
Philip Grant.
Disabled leaseholder group starts fire safety legal action against Government
From Disability Rights UK LINK
The Disabled leaseholders group Claddag has started judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary for awarding a contract to produce guidance which includes the means of escape for Disabled people from fire to CS Todd & Associates Ltd.
In a statement it said: “Given Mr Todd consistently advocates against evacuation plans for Disabled people, and was the only expert of four to do so in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, we do not feel it is right for him to have this influence and authority over the safety of disabled people.”
Paralympian and disability rights campaigner, Baroness Grey-Thompson also raised grave concerns in the House of Lords last week. She spoke of the poor fire safety guidance and practice that ultimately led to 41% of Disabled residents of Grenfell Tower losing their lives in the 2017 fire. She highlighted the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to place a legal duty on owners and agents to prepare Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for Disabled residents unable to self-evacuate, despite a consultation ending on 19 July 2021, and spoke of the Government awarding the contract to produce new fire safety guidance to a fire safety expert whose testimony was rejected by the chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and who had made offensive comments on online fire safety forums about Disabled people.
Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at DR UK said: “DR UK has also written to the Secretary of State seeking reassurance that the Government intends to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations on PEEPs. We have asked when the new regulations on PEEPs will be laid before Parliament, and we have asked for a review of the award of the contract in the light of Equality Act duties.”
Flood and Fire at Brent Scrutiny - are the actions adequate?
There were two main issues at Brent Scrutiny yesterday evening, both vital to the safety of Brent residents. The meeting was chaired by vice chair Cllr Kasangra as Cllr Roxanne Mashari, the chair, is unwell with long covid.
The first item came under 'Topical Issue' and was a follow up to a previous Scrutiny discussion about the impact of flooding, particularly in the Kilburn area. Thames Water appeared to answer questions but unfortunately the Environment Agency, despite requests to attend, did not.
This is important because Thames Water are responsible for sewer flooding, Brent Council for surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency for river flooding. Clearly the 3 factors interact with each other, so a joint approach is necessary along with services such as the London Fire Brigade.
Mike Benke, (Thames Water Local Government Liaison Officer) and Alex Nickson (Lead Responder on July 12th Flooding) addressed the meeting and answered questions.
The July 12th rainfall was much more intense that had been planned for. Thames Water said that they had not responded as well as customers had a right to expect - they had just not been quick enough. They had been overwhelmed on the day and their response had not been good enough.
Thames had already implemented changes such as an increase in resources at call centres and were looking for other sustainable solutions and property protection measures.
Cllr Johnson asked how, with a housing target of 3,200 dwelling, Thames would work with the borough to ensure drainage was adequate. The Committee were clearly shocked to hear the Thames Water were not a statutory consultee on planning applications - they didn't have to be consulted on large developments, but councils do consult them. Thames are pro-active in looking at where developments are proposed. Thames was not anti-development by any stretch but tried to get developers to engage with them. They offer a free pre-application advice service on how to make developments sustainable. However, developers are under no obligation to consult with Thames.
Cllr Kasangra felt Thames should be a statutory consultee. Nickson said that in a perfect world they would be. He remarked that it was not just large development: the cumulative impact of small changes, such as paving over of gardens could be more significant than some large developments.
Thames has appointed an Independent Review into the July 12th events. It was arm’s length to ensure independence despite Thames Water funding it. The three experts will procure evidence from independent professional advisers. It would report in April or May with a particular focus on the Maida Vale areas.
Of 14 recommendations made by the internal review into July 12th nine had been implemented so far and Thames was 'planning for the worst rather than hoping for the best' and working with agencies including the London Fire Brigade. Some actions had been tested during August and October storms without any serious flooding. They would provide the council with an update on the outstanding 5 actions. They were working to improve their communication of events via social media.
A Brent officer said that the council were currently updating their flood planning and looking at attenuation of flood risk via green spaces. They were scoping the whole borough looking at major areas in danger of flooding and nearby green spaces. The surface flood risk plan for the whole borough would be updated and they were also working with neighbouring boroughs on a surface water management plan.
Cllr Mashari had sent in a question asking why Brent was not included in sewer infrastructure upgrade plans. Nickson said he was not aware that Brent was not being covered and would go back to colleagues for a response. There was a rolling programme of works on sewers with a low capacity for growth.
Cllr Hylton asked about the release of sewage into the River Brent. Thames Water said that was currently legal when capacity reached a certain point, but they no longer felt that this was acceptable. They were working with the government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to change the system.
Thames Water had updated system whereby residents could provide details of instances of flooding. Prior to July complainants were asked to send in a questionaire response, now a website has been set up and they could complete it on-line but to avoid digital exclusion a written response could still be made. A record of the responses would be submitted to the Independent Review.
Cllr Janice Long raised the issue of burst water mains and the resulting flooding of roads. In some cases, traffic continued to use the road and the resulting back wash was the course of the flooding of homes lining the road. She asked that in such circumstances roads should be closed. Nickson said this was an excellent point and could be done as a result of liaison between the borough, Thames Water, the Police and the Fire Brigade.
The Committee made three information request:
1. To receive the Independent Review into the events of and response to the floods of July when that is made available
2. To also receive Thames Water's response to that review
3. To receive an update report to the Council's multi-agency flood plan and to make a committee date for this
4. Receive a report on the level of funding in Brent for drainage repairs compated to other London boroughs.
In addition they made a recommendation that the Planning Department of Brent Counciul work more closely with Thames Water on drainage issues arising from planning applications.
The review of Fire Safety is the second item on the above video (beginning at 1.01:15) and was not as comprehensive as the Flood item.
A Brent council tenant who listened carefully to the discussion said:
The scrutiny committee did not seem to know much about the subject they were discussing with the biggest fault being they made no mention as to how residents will be involved, which was the main focus of the Building Safety bill and they failed to even mention Dame Judith Hackitt's three reports on Building Safety and the Fire Safety Act which updated the Fire Safety Order (2005.
Their 'experts' seemed to believe that it is only new buildings that the Building Safety bill applies to but that is not the case, as it also applies to current buildings.
Although they mentioned cladding, no one mentioned fire doors but to be generous the absentee technical officer might have brought them into the discussion and Cllr. Conneely tried to raise issues like fire doors but was told it was a 'housing issue'.
They were also vague about the training competences required but if they had read the Health & Safety reports on Building Safety led by Mr. Baker, the Regulator, they would understand that any new Inspectors would need to start from level 7 (Honours Degree) and have post grad qualifications in Fire Safety and related areas. That is why it is so hard to find suitable candidates, as most surveyors only have an honours degree but nothing higher.
I could go on, but I suppose it was a start, but I would give it a 3 rating (out of 10) as the council needs to start reading all the material that has already been published, although they seem to be waiting for someone to guide them to it.
As Dame Hackitt said only 10% of councils are 'on the ball' e.g. Camden but unfortunately Brent is within the remaining 90%.
Details of the proposed legislation HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)